Occupy
Tel Aviv, January 4 -- media have recently hailed Jed Rakoff for his
article in New York Review of Books, calling for enforcement of the
law on those culpable for the current financial crisis.[i]

Indeed,
the article appears full of compassion - an unusual off-the-bench
statement by a US judge, calling for justice: [ii]

"... millions
of Americans leading lives of quiet desperation: without jobs,
without resources, without hope"; "...was it the result, at
least in part, of fraudulent practices...? ...if, by contrast, the
Great Recession was in material part the product of intentional
fraud, the failure to prosecute those responsible must be judged one
of the more egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many
years... the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, in its final
report, uses variants of the word "fraud" no fewer than 157 times
in describing what led to the crisis... not a single high-level
executive has been successfully prosecuted in connection with the
recent financial crisis, and given the fact that most of the relevant
criminal provisions are governed by a five-year statute of
limitations, it appears likely that none will be... To a federal
judge, who takes an oath to apply the law equally to rich and to
poor, this excuse--sometimes labeled the "too big to jail"
excuse--is disturbing..."

One
is hard-pressed to recall a more hypocritical piece of writing, since
Jed Rakoff himself should be deemed a central figure in the financial
crisis and in undermining banking regulation. [iii,
iv,
v]

- Advertisement -

The
best-documented evidence to such effect is Judge Jed Rakoff's conduct
in Securities and Exchange Committee v Bank of America
Corporation (1:09-cv-06829).[vi]

Summons
as issued by the Clerk of the Court and as executed in SEC v Bank of
America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the US District Court,
Southern District of New York. The summons is unsigned, and
fails to show the seal of the court. The summons was also never
docketed, in disregard of US law, and the US court denied access to
it. It was eventually obtained through a Freedom of Information
request from SEC. The conduct of litigation with no valid
summons, no valid minutes, and where the court denies access to the
authentication records (NEFs -- Notices of Electronic Filing), as well
as the outcome of the litigation, point out to the conduct of sham/simulated litigation from the start, through collusion of the judge,
the clerk, and attorneys for both SEC and Bank of America
Corporation. In fact, from the start -- a show trial.

___

- Advertisement -

Securities
and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation (2009-10) is
landmark litigation under the current financial crisis. The case
originated in the unlawful taking of $5.8 billions by banking
executives, and concluded with the executives never returning
the funds to the stockholders and with no individual being held
accountable.

The
outcome of the litigation was an order by Judge Jed Rakoff, instructing the stockholders -- the victims -- to pay $133
millions to themselves...

The
case was covered numerous times by major US and world media. [iv,v]

The
case is replete with missing and invalid litigation records, leading
to the conclusion that the case as a whole amounts to simulated, sham
litigation. The case commenced with no valid summons, was conducted
with no valid minutes, and the court denies public access to the
authentication records.

Conduct
of Judge Jed Rakoff in this case is not unique either. Similar
conduct by Judge Rakoff was documented in a case involving American
Express. [vii]

Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience in recent years in analyzing banking, courts, and prisons IT systems. His research documented the important role that large-scale fraud in such systems plays in enabling the current financial crisis (more...)